Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly
| Contig ID | Chimera Type | Confidence | Decision | Breakpoint | Evidence Types | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1539 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 749 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 749, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2322 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,322, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2154 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,154, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2891 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,891, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2729 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,729, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1444 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,444, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2550 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,550, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 563 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 563, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1047 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,047, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 443 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 443, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1239 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,239, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 378 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 378, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2446 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,446, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1642 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,642, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1373 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,373, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 256 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 256, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3076 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,076, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1938 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,938, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 326 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 326, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 192 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 192, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3601 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,601, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2962 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,962, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1747 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,747, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4356 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,356, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1325 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,325, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4837 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,837, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3888 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,888, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2857 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,857, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1808 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,808, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2518 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,518, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3728 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,728, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3332 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,332, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2263 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,263, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3119 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,119, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 546 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 546, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2402 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,402, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4239 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,239, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 431 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 431, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1289 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,289, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1572 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,572, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 457 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 457, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1682 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,682, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 334 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1463 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,463, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1940 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,940, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 243 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 243, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1140 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,140, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 541 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 541, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1852 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 772 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 772, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 957 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 957, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 2156 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,156, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2336 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,336, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1678 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,678, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1539 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 547 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 547, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 346 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 346, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1357 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,357, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1964 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,964, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1424 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,424, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 951 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 951, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1262 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,262, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1054 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,054, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 261 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 261, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2139 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,139, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2018 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,018, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 624 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 624, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1791 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,791, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1150 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,150, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 570 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 570, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2474 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,474, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2634 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,634, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2837 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,837, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 451 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 451, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 651 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 651, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1016 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,016, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1558 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,558, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 825 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 825, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2345 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,345, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1237 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,237, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 300 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 300, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1957 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,957, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1780 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,780, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2759 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,759, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3025 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,025, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2524 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,524, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 280 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 280, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2278 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,278, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1160 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,160, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1390 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,390, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2941 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,941, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2025 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,025, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 268 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 268, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 384 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 384, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3716 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,716, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3463 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,463, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3389 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,389, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3645 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,645, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 398 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 398, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2403 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,403, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 532 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 532, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 723 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 723, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4301 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,301, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1818 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,818, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2845 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,845, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1629 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,629, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3153 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,153, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1319 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,319, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2599 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,599, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4649 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,649, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4174 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,174, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3211 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,211, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1221 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,221, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2967 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,967, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1739 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,739, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1447 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,447, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1069 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,069, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3976 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,976, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4485 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,485, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1956 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2607 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,607, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3844 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,844, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4023 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,023, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 235 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 235, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2450 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,450, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3234 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,234, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1287 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,287, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1882 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,882, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4470 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,470, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2060 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,060, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4028 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,028, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1191 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,191, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3751 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,751, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 958 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 958, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3890 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,890, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3072 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,072, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 759 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 759, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2655 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,655, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2238 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,238, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2927 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,927, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4305 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,305, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1064 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,064, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1306 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,306, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3123 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,123, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4172 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,172, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3646 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,646, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3409 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,409, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2716 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,716, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2167 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,167, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 623 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 623, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 552 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 552, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 203 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 203, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4857 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,857, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4543 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 521 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 521, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 4061 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,061, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.48) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2197 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,197, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.11) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3524 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,524, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3776 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,776, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5020 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,020, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2080 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,080, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1954 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,954, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1442 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,442, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 945 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 945, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 5474 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,474, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4252 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,252, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1760 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,760, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2746 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,746, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2492 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,492, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 6257 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,257, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2982 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,982, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1094 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,094, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5190 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,190, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4425 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,425, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2319 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,319, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3407 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,407, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 330 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 330, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 5330 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,330, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 758 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 758, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5879 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,879, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3299 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,299, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.47) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3125 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,125, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1265 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,265, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 631 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 631, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 6140 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,140, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2549 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,549, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1300 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,300, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 450 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 450, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1051 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,051, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 937 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 937, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1695 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,695, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3046 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,046, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 568 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 568, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1172 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,172, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1407 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,407, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 845 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 845, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3275 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,275, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2302 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,302, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2852 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 3558 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,558, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3168 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,168, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 304 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 304, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2751 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,751, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3375 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,375, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 250 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1767 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,767, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1515 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,515, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 754 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 754, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2678 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,678, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2428 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,428, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2956 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1793 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,793, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 694 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 694, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3209 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,209, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 972 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 972, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2171 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,171, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1898 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,898, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 554 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4312 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,312, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 312 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 312, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1357 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,357, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 775 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 775, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3996 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,996, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1182 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,182, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2414 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,414, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2776 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,776, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2802 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,802, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1459 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,459, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3850 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,850, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1657 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,657, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3126 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,126, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3510 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,510, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2364 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,364, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4551 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,551, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 463 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 463, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5005 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,005, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2641 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,641, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2282 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,282, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3038 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4449 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,449, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3710 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,710, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2559 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,559, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4210 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,210, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 842 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 842, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2430 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,430, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3751 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,751, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3609 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,609, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3466 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,466, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3138 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,138, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3244 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,244, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1697 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,697, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2849 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,849, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2726 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,726, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1221 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,221, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2361 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,361, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1852 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1061 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,061, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4023 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,023, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2667 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,667, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3044 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,044, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 733 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 733, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2146 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,146, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2276 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,276, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3303 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,303, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1386 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,386, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2547 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,547, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2932 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,932, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 642 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 642, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 268 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 268, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 327 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 327, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2999 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,999, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 257 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 257, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 736 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 736, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2200 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,200, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2331 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,331, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1466 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,466, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1284 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,284, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1641 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,641, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2454 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,454, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 212 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 212, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 864 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 864, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 956 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2835 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,835, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 369 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 369, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 638 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 638, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2563 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,563, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2130 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,130, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 814 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 814, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 524 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 524, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1833 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,833, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1525 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,525, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1962 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,962, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2469 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,469, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 439 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 439, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1727 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,727, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1499 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,499, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2080 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,080, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2333 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,333, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 164 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 164, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2726 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,726, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2278 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,278, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 631 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 631, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1271 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,271, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1304 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,304, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2115 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,115, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1476 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,476, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1509 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,509, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 657 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 657, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 861 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 861, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 280 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 280, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2561 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,561, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1759 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,759, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1858 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,858, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2717 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,717, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2007 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,007, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1073 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,073, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2370 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,370, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2563 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,563, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1517 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,517, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2069 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,069, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1137 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,137, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2254 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,254, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1731 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,731, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 939 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 939, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2380 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,380, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 858 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 858, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 460 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 460, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 2692 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,692, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 228 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 228, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2145 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,145, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 776 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 776, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1891 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,891, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1002 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,002, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1391 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,391, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1267 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,267, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 636 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 636, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1740 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,740, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 764 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 764, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 924 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 924, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1577 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,577, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1292 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,292, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1076 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,076, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1427 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,427, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 225 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 225, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1656 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,656, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 507 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 507, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 450 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 450, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 350 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 350, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 194 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 194, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.16) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 745 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 745, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 361 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 361, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1628 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,628, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 929 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 929, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 538 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 538, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1179 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,179, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1462 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,462, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1378 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,378, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1800 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,800, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.14) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 799 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 799, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1188 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,188, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1548 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,548, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 535 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 535, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1038 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1370 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,370, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 362 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 362, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 909 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 909, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.47) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.60.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 227 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 227, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1674 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,674, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1433 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,433, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1750 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,750, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 870 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 870, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1593 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,593, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 697 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 697, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2077 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,077, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1440 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,440, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4731 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,731, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1917 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,917, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4672 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,672, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 767 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 767, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 367 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 367, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 603 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 603, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 817 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 817, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3121 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,121, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1631 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,631, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2121 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,121, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1158 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,158, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2987 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,987, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 647 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 647, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2568 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,568, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3474 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,474, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2282 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,282, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1943 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,943, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3938 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,938, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1053 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,053, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3256 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,256, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2844 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,844, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3387 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,387, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1604 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,604, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1434 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,434, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3020 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 464 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 464, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2147 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,147, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3587 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,587, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3166 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,166, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 317 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 317, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2750 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,750, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3686 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,686, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2029 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,029, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2462 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,462, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 762 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 5968 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,968, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4580 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,580, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 831 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 831, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2187 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,187, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2035 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,035, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1981 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,981, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4906 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,906, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2086 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,086, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 390 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 390, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2123 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,123, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1747 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,747, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2999 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,999, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3236 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,236, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3524 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,524, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 656 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 656, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2467 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,467, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3828 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,828, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3731 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,731, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 3656 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,656, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1155 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,155, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1956 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 766 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 766, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3120 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,120, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1462 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,462, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2879 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,879, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 530 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 530, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 973 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 973, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4044 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,044, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 259 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 259, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1630 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,630, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2069 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,069, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3093 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,093, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1391 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,391, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3915 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,915, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1266 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,266, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 891 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 891, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 439 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 439, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1549 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,549, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1990 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,990, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3950 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,950, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 341 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 341, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2320 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,320, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1851 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,851, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1913 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,913, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1591 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,591, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2719 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,719, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1058 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,058, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1189 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,189, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 551 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 551, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1709 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,709, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2478 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,478, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2633 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,633, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2238 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,238, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2174 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,174, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 189 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 189, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 875 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 875, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2037 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,037, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2020 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1749 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,749, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 653 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 653, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1677 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,677, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1477 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,477, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2568 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,568, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 877 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 877, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1152 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,152, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2240 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,240, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1347 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,347, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1987 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,987, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1871 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,871, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 465 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 465, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 939 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 939, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 737 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 737, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 325 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 325, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2179 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,179, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 2845 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,845, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2680 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,680, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2772 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,772, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1191 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,191, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1078 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,078, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1310 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,310, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 237 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 237, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2475 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,475, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1212 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,212, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 169 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 169, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1482 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,482, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2821 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,821, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 163 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 163, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 614 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 614, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1888 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,888, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2042 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,042, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3210 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,210, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2447 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,447, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3394 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,394, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1932 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,932, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.61.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 907 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 907, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4302 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,302, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3475 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,475, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2563 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,563, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4544 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,544, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 425 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 425, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3934 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,934, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 678 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 678, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1386 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,386, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1747 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,747, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1016 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,016, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4054 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,054, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3176 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,176, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4922 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,922, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2363 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,363, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1539 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2131 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,131, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1236 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,236, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 597 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 597, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2901 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,901, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3752 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,752, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 723 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 723, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2061 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,061, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2739 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3058 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,058, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4554 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 229 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 229, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3441 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,441, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 958 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 958, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 172 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 172, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1752 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,752, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 519 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 519, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1349 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,349, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1547 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,547, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 856 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 856, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 645 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 645, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2388 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,388, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4231 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,231, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 5686 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,686, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 3979 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,979, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 784 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 784, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1574 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,574, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3349 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,349, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 5468 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,468, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1492 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,492, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 4709 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,709, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1025 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,025, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2216 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,216, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4522 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,522, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 5315 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,315, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1754 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,754, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 3040 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,040, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 950 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 950, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1348 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,348, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1996 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,996, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2126 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,126, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.54) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2905 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,905, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 413 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 413, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2580 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,580, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3761 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,761, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3698 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,698, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4970 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,970, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2853 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,853, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4853 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,853, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.08) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 5124 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,124, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1151 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,151, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 431 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 431, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2328 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,328, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3583 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,583, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1645 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,645, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2129 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,129, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.11) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 5128 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,128, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2897 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,897, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1482 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,482, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2741 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,741, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 504 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 504, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1705 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,705, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 389 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 389, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1189 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,189, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1036 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,036, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4767 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,767, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 302 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 302, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4856 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,856, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 669 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 669, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3241 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,241, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.61.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4486 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,486, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1580 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,580, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3944 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,944, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4367 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,367, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2649 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,649, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1828 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,828, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3533 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,533, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2862 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,862, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1410 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,410, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3066 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,066, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3375 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,375, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 521 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 521, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4248 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,248, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 887 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 887, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 964 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 964, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2543 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3826 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,826, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 4977 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,977, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4514 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,514, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2137 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,137, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1634 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,634, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2016 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,016, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4063 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,063, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1140 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,140, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4711 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,711, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2739 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1276 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,276, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 969 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 969, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2331 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,331, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1528 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,528, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2676 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,676, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 772 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 772, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2218 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,218, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1128 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,128, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 945 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 945, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2762 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3596 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,596, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2609 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,609, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2749 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,749, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1850 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,850, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2301 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,301, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1247 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,247, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2241 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,241, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1613 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,613, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 837 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 837, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2600 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,600, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3762 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1218 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,218, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 370 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 370, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 640 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 640, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2077 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,077, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1822 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,822, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2420 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,420, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 699 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 699, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.48) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1255 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,255, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4024 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,024, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 158 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 158, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2048 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,048, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3846 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,846, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2289 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,289, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2821 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,821, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 3342 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,342, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4294 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,294, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3393 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,393, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1196 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,196, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:
Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:
Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.